Improving Board Engagement with Educational Quality

Transcription

1 Improving Board Engagement with Educational Quality Institutional Case Report Templates As part of this AGB project, we will be compiling a set of case reports based on the experiences of the participants. These case reports will help other institutions and boards to learn from your experiences and progress. Near the end of the project, we will ask you for materials and insights that will form the basis of the case reports. What follows is a draft outline of anticipated content and sources. Who you are Briefly describe the institution, its mission and its board including composition and committee structure with particular attention to its committees and work focusing on student learning outcomes. Founded in 1867 as the Centenary Biblical Institute by the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the institution's original mission was to train young men in ministry. Today, the mission of Morgan State University (Morgan) is to serve the community, region, state, nation, and world as an intellectual and creative resource by supporting, empowering and preparing high-quality, diverse graduates to lead the world. Morgan offers innovative, inclusive, and distinctive educational experiences to a broad cross section of the population in a comprehensive range of disciplines at the baccalaureate, master s, doctoral, and professional degree levels. The Carnegie Foundation classifies Morgan as a Doctoral Research University (DRU) and the Maryland General Assembly has designated Morgan as Maryland's Public Urban University. In addition to a President, Morgan is governed by a 15 member Board of Regents (Board) established under Title 14 of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. The Governor of Maryland appoints Board members for six-year terms, except for the student regent who is appointed for a one-year term. The standing committees of the Board are: The Executive Committee is composed of the three elected officers (the Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Secretary) and the chairs of the standing committees. The Board Chair is the chair of the Executive Committee which advises the President on pressing matters when the Board is not in session and on issues which do not fall within the purview of one of the standing committees. The Finance and Facilities Committee has responsibility for all matters related to the business and financial policies and practices of the University, including management of property and facilities, review of annual budgets prepared by the President, monitoring of all budgetary requests, and make recommendations regarding personnel or budgetary changes which are exceptions to an approved budget. This Committee also reviews and presents to the Board all audit reports and any other reports regarding the annual fiscal and financial needs of the University. Morgan State University Page 1

2 The Audit Committee devotes particular attention to oversight of Morgan s financial reporting and related matters, including, but not necessarily limited to oversight of internal controls, review of the financial statements and management's corrective action plans in response to internal as well as external auditors, review and approval of internal audit's long range plans and activities, monitoring ethics and compliance with laws, and ensuring fraud hotlines are maintained. The Academic and Student Affairs Committee has responsibility for policy matters concerning all undergraduate and graduate academic programs and departments at Morgan and the Committee make appropriate recommendations with respect to the establishment of new academic programs, policies, and procedures and recommends to the Board persons to receive honorary degrees. Your starting point regarding board oversight of student learning (Summer 2012) Please describe your approach to board oversight of educational quality at the beginning of the project (Summer 2012) BASELINE BOARD OF REGENTS OVERSIGHT OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: 2012 Student Learning Metric - Institutional Assessment Alumni surveys Standardized tests or certification exams National student surveys (e.g., NSSE, Noel-Levitz) Graduation rates Number of degrees awarded Time to degree Retention and graduation statistics for the institution Results of accreditation reviews Employer satisfaction surveys Discipline-based assessments (i.e. by major or department) High-impact practices (e.g., internships, study abroad) Employment or earnings data for graduates Institutionally-developed tests of knowledge, skills, or abilities Average GPA Rankings data (such as US News, Peterson s) Presented to Board No No No Ways and frequency in which the board and faculty interact (if they interact) The Board and faculty may interact in one of three ways. First, the deans of the 7 schools and the College of Liberal Arts typically attend the meetings of the Academic and Student Affairs committee. Select faculty members may also attend this Committee meeting particularly if they have information about academic programs and/or initiatives in which the Committee is interested. Morgan State University Page 2

3 Second, subject to Maryland s open meetings law, Md. State Gov't Code Ann et seq., the meetings of the full Board are open to the public. Faculty may attend the Board s meetings. It is fair to say that unless there is a matter of particular interest to the faculty few attend the Board s meetings. Third, the President, the Board, and/or one of the Board s standing committees may invite faculty to make a presentation to the Board and/or to a committee. Board processes for the oversight of educational quality The Academic and Student Affairs Committee of which the student Regent is a member is the primary means by which the Board exercises oversight of educational quality. Any number of state mandated reports including, but not limited to, the Performance Accountability Report (PAR), proposals for new academic programs, Diversity reports, etc., are reviewed and/or vetted in the Academic and Student Affairs Committee prior to being presented to the full Board for appropriate action or for information. What you are currently doing (Fall 2013) Please describe your approach to board oversight of educational quality at the conclusion of the project (Fall 2013) As part of the Association of Governing Boards/Teagle Foundation s (AGB/Teagle) project, in September 2012, a team from Morgan including the Chair of the Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Committee met with teams from eight other colleges and universities to engage in discussions about each institution s respective governing board level assessments of student learning outcomes in Board-level student learning metrics. This AGB/Teagle project coincided with two significant assessment initiatives underway at Morgan. With the approval in August 2011 of Morgan s ten (10) year strategic plan entitled, Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic Plan for Morgan State University, , the Board of Regents requested that: 1. each school and college at Morgan develop a strategic plan with appropriate outcomes metrics that would assist in achieving the goals of the University s strategic plan; and, 2. a dashboard be developed to benchmark progress towards the strategic plan s goals. Additionally, following Morgan s decennial self study and team visit in 2008, the Periodic Review Report (PRR) was due to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) in June Among the visiting team s recommendations that Morgan was required to address in its 2013 PRR was a requirement that the University re-examine and rewrite the Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) to include mission-based assessment goals for student learning, academic programs, services and administrative processes. In summary, the three assessment initiatives referenced above, i.e., the AGB/Teagle project, the Board mandated strategic plan dashboard, and the PRR, have all contributed to Morgan s approach to board oversight of educational quality at the conclusion of the project (Fall 2013). Morgan State University Page 3

4 Institutional assessment processes The Board, including the Academic and Student Affairs Committee, now regularly reviews the Morgan State University Dashboard, which tracks key performance indicators (KPIs) of the five goals of the ten year strategic plan, including Goal 1: Enhancing Student Success. Among the KPIs tracked in the dashboard for Goal 1 are enrollment, retention rate, 6 Yr Graduation Rate, undergraduate degrees, and education value added. A copy of the dashboard is attached as Appendix No As a direct result of the AGB/ Teagle project, members of Morgan s team worked with the schools and college deans to develop student learning metrics that would also serve as metrics for their respective strategic plan goals. All of the data is derived from Banner, i.e., the University s database. The data will provide the schools/college with information about their student body size and demographic composition, recruitment statistics, and graduation and retention rates. Given its ease of use and accessibility, APEX has been selected as the main tool to present these data. In summary, the metrics derived from APEX were developed as a result of Morgan s participation in the AGB/Teagle project to facilitate its Board of Regents focus and understanding of student learning outcomes. The metrics are also designed to assist the deans, chairs, and faculty in assessing progress towards achieving the goals identified in the schools and college s strategic plans. Ways and frequency in which the board and faculty interact (if they interact) Faculty and the Board continue to interact in the three ways described above. The only change which cannot be attributed to the AGB/Teagle project, is that the President has initiated efforts to make faculty presentations to the Board more of a regular occurrence. Subject to time constraints, the faculty presentations are generally well received by the Board. Board processes for the oversight of educational quality The Office of the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Operations (AVPAO) supports the strategic initiatives of Morgan State University by directing the implementation of the revised Comprehensive Assessment Plan as mandated by MSCHE and overseeing the operation of the Center for Performance Assessment, the Office of General Education, and the University Assessment Committee. The Office of the AVPAO collaborates with all divisions at Morgan to collect, analyze, report on and use data related to institutional effectiveness, accreditation; student success, satisfaction and retention; and campus performance against key benchmark indicators. The AVPAO reports to the Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost who represents the University on the Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Committee. Both the Provost and the AVPAO provide regular reports to the Academic and Student Affairs Committee. 1 When completed the draft dashboard dated December 2012 will be posted to Morgan s website, password protected with varying levels of public, institutional, and Board access. Morgan State University Page 4

5 Additionally, institutional quality and effectiveness at Morgan State University is an ongoing, integrated and systematic set of institutional processes that include planning, the evaluation of programs and services, the identification and measurement of learning outcomes in the context of the University s mission and strategic goals, the use of data and assessment results for decision-making that results in improvements in programs, service and institutional quality. Each school and college has its own strategic planning committee that oversees and monitors the strategic initiatives of the academic programs. The colleges, library, and University offices/divisions prepare annual reports and assessment plans that detail the planning and assessment initiatives within their respective areas. How you got there The steps you took to increased board engagement with student learning outcomes assessment and educational quality and with what effect. In its interim June report to AGB Morgan s team noted the challenge of how to identify direct measures of student learning that lend themselves to ease of reporting and can be understood without too much nuanced explanation by the faculty. Morgan State University has a writing proficiency requirement, the Junior Writing Proficiency Exam (JWPE),that all students must satisfy in order to graduate. Among the eligibility requirements that students must meet in order to take the JWPE is having earned transfer credit or a final grade of C or better in ENGL101 or ENGL111. Although students may satisfy the University s writing proficiency requirement by passing with a grade of C or better higher level English courses including English 350, 352, or 354, eighty (80%) percent of students elect to take the JWPE. As such, the JWPE is an excellent direct measure of a student learning outcome. The Chair of the Board s Academic and Student Affairs Committee is a member of the Morgan team participating in this AGB/Teagle project and she attended the September 2012 meeting with AGB staff and other institutions' teams discussing board level metrics for student learning outcomes. In subsequent meetings of the Board, the Chair has caused the Academic and Student Affairs Committee as well as the full Board to be briefed on Morgan s initiatives to develop metrics of student learning outcomes. In summary, on its own initiative the Board requested the development of a dashboard to benchmark progress towards the strategic plan s five goals including Goal 1: Enhancing Student Success. The Board s request that each school/college also develop strategic plan was the primary means by which the Morgan team was able to introduce metrics that focus on board level metrics of student learning outcomes. The key performance indicators of Enhancing Student Success in the dashboard are the same (or similar) to the APEX metrics shared with the Deans and senior academic officials at the April 8 meeting of the Academic Affairs Council. The study of the JWPE following closely as it did on the heels of the April 8 meeting helped to highlight a way to address the challenge of a direct measure of student learning outcomes raised by the Morgan team in its interim June report to AGB. Lessons from experience Morgan State University Page 5

6 Please share the most salient lessons from your experience about how to further board oversight of educational quality What two or three things most facilitated your progress? What advice would you offer to others based on your experience? Perhaps the most important thing that facilitated the increased focus by the Academic and Student Affairs Committee, in particular, and the by the full Board of Regents, in general, was the participation of the Committee Chair, on the Morgan team in this AGB/Teagle project. Given her profile as a committee chair and officer of the Board she was able to raise and/or entertain issues and call for reports that focused specifically on student learning outcomes. Thus, one salient lesson about how to further board oversight of educational quality is to ensure that the chair of the primary academic committee of a board is participating in meetings, group discussions, and activities beyond his or her chair duties that focus on measuring student learning outcomes. The Morgan team also benefitted immensely by having a member of the team whose primary responsibility on campus is the extraction of data from the University s information technology platform. Morgan s progress towards the AGB/Teagle project goals was also facilitated by the coalescence of the Board s request for dashboard to benchmark strategic plan goals and the timing of the MSCHE mandated Periodic Review Report. The PRR was required to specifically address a Comprehensive Assessment Plan which focused on student learning outcomes. A broad representation of faculty and staff comprised the 30 member PRR Steering Committee which included two of the members of Morgan s AGB/Teagle team. Thus, progress towards the AGB/Teagle project goals was facilitated by the exchange of information and data about metrics, policies, and practices related to student assessment already occurring on campus but which may not, at that point, have been shared with the Board of Regents. In summary, based on the Morgan s team s experience, most salient lessons from our experience about how to further board oversight of educational quality are: invite board members, particularly chairs or other officers, to join discussions, activities, and projects beyond their roles and responsibilities as board members that focus on broad policy issues that should be addressed by the board; choose purposely the members of any institutional team that will be addressing topics of general concern to the board. Depending on the size of the team, membership should focus on outcomes expected from the team rather than compatibility, supervisory levels, or the convenience of administrative appointment; and, whenever possible, integrate the process and/or effort necessary to successfully complete a new initiative (e.g. the AGB/Teagle project) into the ongoing institutional and student learning assessment efforts routinely required by the institution, professional societies, state licensing, and/or regional accreditation commissions. The Morgan team found that the two way exchange of ideas and information, including potential metrics, enhanced the outcomes of both the new initiatives and the ongoing processes of institutional assessment and the measurement of student learning outcomes. Morgan State University Page 6

7 What two or three things slowed progress? What lessons do you draw regarding pitfalls and sticky points? What advice would you offer to others based on your experience? The composition of the team working on an initiative should be purposely appointed. The nature of transience in higher education, however, staff in particular, means that it is likely that the team the institution so purposely appoints will not necessarily be the team that completes the initiative. As team members leave they frequently carry with them pockets of information (and on occasion documents) that would facilitate the successful completion of the initiative. The Morgan team suggests that as much as possible information and documents related to the (new) initiative be shared widely among team members and posted whenever possible into a central electronic repository easily accessible by all old as well as new team members. In general, while the work load of team members in most cases is simply a factor to be accounted for, perhaps on lesson is whenever possible it would be helpful if the team leaders had some flexibility in adjusting his or her work load to make the completion of new initiatives more of a priority. For further information contact: Name: Maurice C. Taylor Title: Vice President for Academic Outreach and Engagement maurice.taylor@morgan.edu Phone number: (443) Address: Room 206 McKeldin Morgan State University 1700 East Cold Spring Lane Baltimore, MD Assistant s Name: Assistant s contact information: Niya Spencer niya.spencer@morgan.edu (443) Room 206 McKeldin Morgan State University 1700 East Cold Spring Lane Baltimore, MD Morgan State University Page 7